Another update to the LSE Middle East Centre saga

I am replying to your email to me of 15th January. You refer to the debate at the School on an academic boycott of Israel. The debate was a joint event organised by the Israeli and Palestine societies here, who both agreed that issues ought to be debated in public. As you note, Dr Chalcraft proposed the motion and a professor from UCL opposed it. The motion failed.

You suggest that Dr Chalcraft’s view cannot be consistent with our claim that the Middle East Centre will provide balanced and informed analysis of the region. I do not agree. Professor Fawaz Gerges, director of the centre, has said: “The Middle East Centre is committed to rigorous research and scholarship with the scrupulous preservation of its academic independence. There is a distinction between the policy of an institution and the views of individual academics, who retain their freedom of opinion and hold diverse views on many subjects. This variety can help provide collective strength and balance in dealing with controversial matters. More than 20 academics are involved in the Middle East Centre (through its research group and management group) and all of them are outstanding scholars of the region”.

You go on to say that you “can no longer believe the claim that the Middle East Centre was in no way to blame for the map” in our magazine which you have complained about before. I find this a remarkable assertion. Effectively you are accusing me and Claire Sanders of lying to you. We have explained clearly the circumstances in which the map was chosen and have explained that it is unfortunate. But it was not a matter for the centre itself.

Howard Davies

Here is my self-explanatory response:

Dear Sir Howard

Thank you for your response.

>I am replying to your email to me of 15th January. You refer to the debate at the School on an academic boycott of Israel. The debate was a joint event organised by the Israeli and Palestine societies here, who both agreed that issues ought to be debated in public.

I look forward then to future debates proposing an academic boycott of Pakistan (or indeed virtually any of the world's 58 Muslim states which have anti-Chrisitian and anti-semitic policies and laws, not to mention numerous occupations and violations of human rights), an academic boycott of America (for conducting 'imperialist wars' in the Middle East), an academic boycott of China (for its occupation of Tibet and violation of human rights) , an academic boycott of the UK (see America), an academic boycott of Switzerland (for its banning of Muslim minarets), etc.

Can you please let me know when each of these debates is taking place at LSE in the near future. If they are not, or if you believe that any of those are issues should NOT be debated in public, then am I allowed to call you an anti-semite? Because I am afraid that is the only valid conclusion to draw.

>As you note, Dr Chalcraft proposed the motion and a professor from UCL opposed it. The motion failed.; You suggest that Dr Chalcraft’s view cannot be consistent with our claim that the Middle East Centre will provide balanced and informed analysis of the region. I do not agree.

Since Dr Chalcraft is listed on the LSE website as a manager of the Middle East Centre I think any rational person would tend to agree with me and not you. Oh and by the way independent attendees of the debate (I was not there) felt that Dr Chalcroft destroys the credibility not just of the Middle East Centre but of LSE as a a whole.

> You go on to say that you “can no longer believe the claim that the Middle East Centre was in no way to blame for the map” in our magazine which you have complained about before. I find this a remarkable assertion. Effectively you are accusing me and Claire Sanders of lying to you. We have explained clearly the circumstances in which the map was chosen and have explained that it is unfortunate. But it was not a matter for the centre itself.

I do not know if you are lying or if this was an incredible coincidence. If it was the latter then I apologise. But when I hear yet again that LSE this week supported further outrageous behaviour by anti-Israel fanatics of the PalSoc (brandishing fake guns and blood and intimidating Jewish students) then perphaps you will apologise for allowing, under your Directorship, a fine institution to have become a place where irrational anti-Israel activities dominate the campus and Jewish students no longer feel comfortable or safe.

4 comments:

i am all for debate.. but i would be debating whether or not it is appropriate for a univeristy to single out a single ciomplex situation and stifle the academia in another country as opposed to genuinely investing in the understanding of topic..

i remember when i studied at a particular univeristy which i shall leave as nameless - one of the mid east experts had never even been there.. i used to hear her outrageous pro sadam views and i thought wow.. so much presumption.. did you get that insight in a "cup-a-soup" package?

this is what makes these times so fascinating.. the significance of events has severely diminished.. we now live ina world where the "event" is but a seed to the essence.. the hype is the new truth and no one hails it better than echo umberto when he speaks about these topics in travels in hyperreality (probably one ofthe few books i almost finished readinh haha)